Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Wisconsin (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Wisconsin
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye:
Incorrect. Because it is most likely that the private janitors aren't unionized at all. So the public guys are actually being forced into a comperable situation as their private bretheren.


How is having the right to unionize revoked comparable to the private workers who retain that right? The solution would seem to be just the opposite; if private workers are suffering from the lack of a union, then they should form one so that they're less able to be victimized.

But even without the union, the private sector workers are benefiting, because the unions provide a baseline that non-union employers must meet or beat to attract workers, and trade-offs that they must offer to compensate for less security, as well as basic standards for working conditions and schedules. Remove the union baseline from the picture, and the private sector compensation will drop as well, and working conditions will deteriorate rapidly.

quote:
But even this is disingenuous. I am a janitor making X dollars. This legislation states that I can get inflation tacked onto my wages with the stroke of the legislator's pen. So the union worker is NOT LOSING A DIME.
The union workers are actively accepting significant pay cuts for the sake of the state budget; they are certainly losing more than a dime here. The issue of contention is retaining their ability to collectively bargain in the future so that divide an conquer tactics can't be used to set off a race to the bottom.
Posts: 8056 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin - whatever point you think you made, you missed the real point here, the very thing FDR warned about with regards to public unions is precisely what is being done in Wisconsin. That's what a "sick out" is...a form of a strike.

But nevermind, let's focus on whether or not FDR was for public sector unions or not (despite not allowing the Government workers to unionize during his adminstration...) the real point - As soon as you have a critical mass of public sector union workers, they will hold the Government hostage to meet their collectively bargained benefits, even if those are unrealistic and eventually lead to state bankruptcy.

No, you're quoting conservative websites that claim to be quoting socialists. Source the quote directly if you wan't to actually quoting the person who said it.

Way to miss the point and attack the source. Whether this is a 'conservative' website or not, if you want to claim that it's quotation of Ziedler is false or inaccurate, it's up to you to prove it, not simply say it's irrelevant because it's from a "conservative" site.

Now let's focus again on the quotation of Zeidler's

Government unions "can mean considerable loss of control over the budget, and hence over tax rates," he warned.

And now on to the Oz Sheep Herder:

I love watching people from the country that has some of the worst pay and conditions for low income earners in the western world loudly insisting that market forces will make everything work just fine, and that making it illegal for large chunks of low income earners to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining will improve their lot in life.

I love how romancers of ruminants from a different country think they understand what the real conditions of low income earners is really like here, and when they erect straw men arguments that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Just to be clear, sheep herder, public sector employees are nowhere near the "large chunk of low income earners."

[/i]I'm assuming of course that Daruma actually gives a damn about the plight of school janitors here and isn't just arguing in favour of scrapping public sector unions because governments won't have to take quite as many tax dollars if they can employ wage slaves. [/i]

Go back to minding your sheep.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As soon as you have a critical mass of public sector union workers, they will hold the Government hostage to meet their collectively bargained benefits, even if those are unrealistic and eventually lead to state bankruptcy.
Why do you believe this is true?
Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Pyrtolin - whatever point you think you made, you missed the real point here, the very thing FDR warned about with regards to public unions is precisely what is being done in Wisconsin. That's what a "sick out" is...a form of a strike.


If this were over contract terms, I'd agree that it was contextually appropriate. But the contract negotiation is done. The unions have, in fact agreed to the contract terms. This is a protest of a fundamental violation of basic rights, and the dispute is with the lawmakers themselves, not with the management of their respective divisions.

The qualifications that FDR noted were, first that public managers are bound by laws in a way taht private company managers are not, and that such strikes amount to attack of the government entity itself. Here the dispute is with the lawmakers; those that do have the full authority to set the rules, and it's a direct response to an outright attack on the workers by the government, so it becomes a matter of self defense, which changes the game a bit.

quote:
But nevermind, let's focus on whether or not FDR was for public sector unions or not (despite not allowing the Government workers to unionize during his adminstration...)
Yeah, he just wrote letters congratulating Federal Employee Unions on their good work, expressing his support for them, and praising the responsible way they went about their business.

quote:
the real point - As soon as you have a critical mass of public sector union workers, they will hold the Government hostage to meet their collectively bargained benefits, even if those are unrealistic and eventually lead to state bankruptcy.
Except they won't because doing so will ultimately result in furloughs and layoffs. And heck, "unreasonable" is a completely unfounded assertion here., especially considering how far behind their private sector equivalents they allow themselves to lag behind in order to ensure functional stability.

quote:
Way to miss the point and attack the source. Whether this is a 'conservative' website or not, if you want to claim that it's quotation of Ziedler is false or inaccurate, it's up to you to prove it, not simply say it's irrelevant because it's from a "conservative" site.
It's an unsourced quote that has no references at all outside the exact same phrase posted over and over. It's not even a full sentence, never mind the full context of the quote.

It is the responsibility of the person quoting someone to provide a reference for it, not of everyone else to prove that the words weren't simply made up or taken completely out of context; asserting that something is a quote without a reference is a non-falsifiable position equivalent to asserting the existence of invisible, intangible pink unicorns.

Posts: 8056 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
daruma,
quote:
Just to be clear, sheep herder, public sector employees are nowhere near the "large chunk of low income earners."
...
Go back to minding your sheep.

Please don't. I was actually enjoying reading your earlier posts.
Posts: 6373 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's an unsourced quote that has no references at all outside the exact same phrase posted over and over. It's not even a full sentence, never mind the full context of the quote.
A similar quote I've seen lately on conservative blogs is "it only takes one man with courage to make a majority" -- or a slightly modified equivalent -- which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson. As far as I can tell, Jefferson never said anything of the kind, and the other common attribution (to Andrew Jackson) is itself an error propagated by Robert Kennedy. Kennedy himself seems to have been the first political figure to put it that way.
Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems like it would be "so bad" because many of the union workers of Wisconsin seem to really, really not want it to happen.
[...]
Fixed that for you.

I'm not sure why anyone ever thinks that the "fixed that for you" line is amusing or apt.

Is it your contention that my statement would have been more accurate had "people of Wisconsin" been changed to "union workers of Wisconsin"? I have no doubt that the statement is also accurate with your wording, so as far as it goes, that's fine.

Unpacking what I think your implication was - although it would be easier to know what you meant if you just came out and, you know, said a thing - it looks like you think that the "people of Wisconsin who are not union workers" are not protesting and do not support the protests.

But you make this implication (if, indeed, this is your intended meaning) without actually supporting it with data. Data that I'm sure is, by this point, actually available.
Would you care to make the argument that non-union-workers of Wisconsin in general do not support the protests, and to back that argument up with some sort of data?

Otherwise, please consider the difference between a "populist uprising" in which a few hundred cranky middle-aged white men try desperately to get media attention for their frankly crackpot ideas, and the actual populist event taking place in Wisconsin, where 70,000 people show up spontaneously because they believe strongly in something.

Some people may have an ideology wherein union protections and workers' rights are a Terrible Thing. Most actual people working in jobs prefer to have things like a defined workday and work week, sick leave, breaks for meals, disclosure about working with hazardous materials, protection in the case of on-the-job injury, and a fair wage.

Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is some current national polling data:
quote:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided.

With states across the country finding that benefits for public workers are becoming difficult to fund in the current economic climate, support for public employee unions has fallen. Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans favor them, and 45% don’t. These findings include 21% who Strongly Favor such unions and 30% who are Strongly Opposed to them.

Public employee unions have long been strong supporters, financially and otherwise, of Democratic Party candidates, so it’s no surprise that 68% of Democrats support the union workers in the Wisconsin dispute. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties side with the governor.

Link
Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Data, that is, from a very sloppy poll:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/rasmussen-poll-on-wisconsin-dispute-may-be-biased/

quote:
The issue is clearest with the third question, which asked respondents whether “teachers, firemen and policemen” should be allowed to go on strike. By invoking the prospect of such strikes, which are illegal in many places (especially for the uniformed services) and which many people quite naturally object to, the poll could potentially engender a less sympathetic reaction toward the protesters in Wisconsin. It is widely recognized in the scholarship on the subject, and I have noted before, that earlier questions in a survey can bias the response to later ones by framing an issue in a particular way and by casting one side of the argument in a less favorable light.

The Rasmussen example is more blatant than most. While many teachers have been among the protesters at the State Capitol in Madison, obliging the city to close its schools for days, there have been no reports of reductions in police or fire services, and in fact, uniformed services are specifically exempted from the proposals that the teachers and other public-sector employees are protesting. So bringing in the uniformed services essentially makes No. 3 a talking point posed as a question.

As an analogy, imagine a survey that asked respondents whether they believed the Democrats’ health care overhaul included “death panels” before asking them whether they approved or disapproved of the bill over all.

The second question in the Rasmussen poll found that 36 percent of respondents believe that public-sector employees earn more than private-sector workers in their state, while 21 percent thought public sector workers earned less, and 20 percent thought they earned about the same amount.

In fact, according to an analysis by USA Today, state employees earn about 5 percent less than comparable employees in the private sector, on average, although federal employees receive significantly (20 percent) more.



[ February 22, 2011, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 8056 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, Daruma - what are you offering the public workers in return for taking away their right to unionize? You said something about "security", I believe, please elaborate.
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here is some current national polling data:
I suppose it's a start, but since this is a state issue and I was originally referring to the people of Wisconsin, I can't find it particularly relevant.

And I will just point out that finding data that show that less than half of nationally-polled people support each "side" of the dispute when asked about it on the phone is especially not relevant - I was particularly talking about how many people are upset enough about the proposal to be actually protesting outside the Capitol in Wisconsin. And it's lots! Seventy thousand is a pretty substantial number for a state protest.

So anyways, I'm still waiting for some data supporting the insinuation that the only people who really care about the protest are union workers.
Are there even 70K state employees in Wisconsin?

Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers.
I would be deeply suspicious of any national polls, as Fox News has been lying about this nearly non-stop since it started a week ago. Frankly, people from out of state aren't likely to be getting good information.
Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Walker to unions:
Call your people off or I will start cutting jobs.

Classy move.

What on earth is the logic behind not allowing public employees collective bargaining for working conditions?

Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The logic is: Walker is being pressured by his corporate backers to kill the unions.
Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile] Well, I suppose that would do it.
Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers.
I would be deeply suspicious of any national polls, as Fox News has been lying about this nearly non-stop since it started a week ago. Frankly, people from out of state aren't likely to be getting good information.
[Roll Eyes]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin] [Embarrassed] [Mad] [Cool] [Razz] [Crying] [DOH] [Big Grin]
Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The logic is: Walker is being pressured by his corporate backers to kill the unions.

You sure about that? What do his corporate backers have to gain by the busting up of public unions?
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoa, look what else is in the same bill:

quote:
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
I begin to see why these jerks want the bill pushed through so badly.
Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well Ops, I guess that answers my question for Tom. [LOL]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Well Ops, I guess that answers my question for Tom. [LOL]

Nah, that's just another per in there for them on top of being able to drive worker compensation through the floor and roll the clock back to the Triangle Shirt Company.
Posts: 8056 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to be clear...Corporate influence on Government is certainly the horrible bastard many of you lefty-like folks think it is - but that does not mean undue influence from public sector unions is automatically "good."

There's a reason they call it 'special interests' and not just 'corporate interest.' The unions got just as much to do with the clusterf**k facing most State Governments in this new economic reality.

The private sector has taken the majority of the hit of the current situation, while the public sector is largely been sheltered from it thanks to their collectively bargained guarantees.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a Wisconsin poll sponsored by the AFL-CIO -

http://gqrr.com/articles/2600/6445_AFL-CIO (Wisconsin)-Results for Feb. 19-20 (2.22.2011).pdf

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Answer my question please.
Posts: 19143 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts - can you explain what you are trying to show with that poll, if anything?
Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not trying to make a point.

I'm posting a poll that's relevant to the conversation, so people can take a look at the results and make their own judgments.

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*nod* Although I did already reference the 75%/25% pro-union split in this thread, it's always nice to see someone dig up the data. [Smile]

[ February 23, 2011, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FiveThirtyEight had an interesting take on the polls, too.

quote:
First, a Gallup poll released yesterday that finds that while the public has ambivalent feelings toward public sector unions, they say they oppose any move by their state to eliminate collective bargaining rights by about a 2:1 margin. And second, a recent Clarus Group poll which shows fairly negative feelings toward public-sector unions; by about a 2:1 margin, people in the Clarus poll think government employees should not be represented by unions...

But there are an awful lot of issues on which the American public has ambivalent feelings, but nevertheless objects to rights being taken away...

The public might not be enamored of public sector unions, but by about a 2:1 margin, they think they have the right to exist.

So Walker may be both right and wrong about what "the people want." [Smile]
Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Staff at the state Department of Regulation and Licensing have begun to review roughly 300 e-mail complaints about doctors issuing excuse notes for protesters at the state Capitol over the weekend, officials said Tuesday.

Complaints that name a specific doctor and the alleged violations of rules covered by their licenses will be forwarded to the Wisconsin Medical Examining Board. Letters specifying the complaint will be sent to the doctors at the start of the investigation.

To date, the names of doctors Lou Sanner and James Shropshire have been cited in media reports about the medical excuses dispensed over the weekend. Both are affiliated with the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. The agency said none of the doctors involved was representing UW Health at the time.

heh, I bet they want to be very clear about not representing UW Health. They're gonna want to be as far away from this as they can.

Those doctors were at the very least unethical and there is a very real chance that a crime has been committed. If any of these teachers were getting sick pay, some lawyers may argue that it is a criminal deception - and it is.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Those doctors were at the very least unethical and there is a very real chance that a crime has been committed. If any of these teachers were getting sick pay, some lawyers may argue that it is a criminal deception - and it is.

It's fraud. I don't know whether it's prosecutable, though. Still it's stupid from their point of view and it might well cost them their medical license.
Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I heard a little bit about those doctors; although of course one can't be sure exactly what's going on without being there, it does look like a clearly unethical choice on the doctors' part.

[Frown]

Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Found a comprehensive article that makes the case I originally tried to point out...

...and before Pyrtolin can register his typical "that's a conservative website" I've never seen this website before, I do not know if it is "conservative" or "liberal," nor do I care. I found it from the linking of an obscure blogger.

The merits of the argument put forth in this article are logical enough to judge the case it presents on it's own merits.

The Trouble with Public Sector Unions

quote:
When Chris Christie became New Jersey's governor in January, he wasted no time in identifying the chief perpetrators of his state's fiscal catastrophe. Facing a nearly $11 billion budget gap — as well as voters fed up with the sky-high taxes imposed on them to finance the state government's profligacy — Christie moved swiftly to take on the unions representing New Jersey's roughly 400,000 public employees.

On his first day in office, the governor signed an executive order preventing state-workers' unions from making political contributions — subjecting them to the same limits that had long applied to corporations. More recently, he has waged a protracted battle against state teachers' unions, which are seeking pay increases and free lifetime health care for their members. Recognizing the burden that such benefits would place on New Jersey's long-term finances, Christie has sought instead to impose a one-year wage freeze, to change pension rules to limit future benefits, and to require that teachers contribute a tiny fraction of their salaries to cover the costs of their health insurance — measures that, for private-sector workers, would be mostly uncontroversial.

The firestorm that these proposals have sparked demonstrates the political clout of state-workers' unions. Christie's executive order met with vicious condemnation from union leaders and the politicians aligned with them; his fight with the public-school teachers prompted the New Jersey Education Association to spend $6 million (drawn from members' dues) on anti-Christie attack ads over a two-month period. Clearly, the lesson for reform-minded politicians has been: Confront public-sector unions at your peril.

Yet confront them policymakers must. As Christie said about the duel with the NJEA, "If we don't win this fight, there's no other fight left." Melodramatic as this may sound, for many states, it is simply reality. The cost of public-sector pay and benefits (which in many cases far exceed what comparable workers earn in the private sector), combined with hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities for retired government workers, are weighing down state and city budgets. And staggering as these burdens seem now, they are actually poised to grow exponentially in the years ahead. If policymakers fail to rein in this growth, a fiscal crack-up will be the inevitable result.

Oh yes. Call it the Demographic bomb. Boomers retiring en mass. It's the same problem that SS, Medicare and Medicade are facing.

quote:
New Jersey has drawn national attention as a case study, but the same scenario is playing out in state capitals from coast to coast. New York, Michigan, California, Washington, and many other states also find themselves heavily indebted, with public-sector unions at the root of their problems. In exchange, taxpayers in these states are rewarded with larger and more expensive, yet less effective, government, and with elected officials who are afraid to cross the politically powerful unions. As the Wall Street Journal put it recently, public-sector unions "may be the single biggest problem...for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance." They may also be the biggest challenge facing state and local officials — a challenge that, unless economic conditions dramatically improve, will dominate the politics of the decade to come.
Yup, same story here in Hawaii.

quote:
The rise of government-worker unionism has also combined with the broader transformation of the American economy to produce a sharp divergence between public- and private-sector employment. In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class. This discrepancy indicates how poorly the middle class has fared in recent decades in the private economy, which is home to 80% of American jobs. But it also highlights the increased benefits of government work, and shines a spotlight on the gains public-sector unions have secured for their members. Perhaps this success helps explain why, on average, 39% of state- and local-government employees belong to unions.
Hell to the yes. I've been on both sides of this equation. About a year and a half ago, the State of Hawaii had to institute furlough days for State workers because of not enough money in State Coffers to fund all the public sector jobs. I remember one public skool teacher writing a letter to the paper complaining that this represented a 14% decrease in wages...it "unfair." What an entitled, whining piece of garbage. I've had a 75% reduction in income and had to file for bankruptcy because of the economic downturn. I WISH I only had only experienced a 14% reduction in income.

But the real point here? The manner in which public sector unions has now become a hidden driver of political agendas that are detrimental to us all.

quote:
Another common objection to collective bargaining with public-employee unions was that it would mean taking some of the decision-making authority over government functions away from the people's elected representatives and transferring it to union officials, with whom the public had vested no such authority. In this view, democracy would be compromised when elected officials began sharing with union leaders the power to determine government employees' wages, benefits, and working conditions. Furthermore, collectively bargained work rules could alter what public servants did day to day in ways not condoned by either elected officials or the voting public.
Note how this actually plays out...

quote:
By contrast, as economist Richard Freeman has written, "public sector unions can be viewed as using their political power to raise demand for public services, as well as using their bargaining power to fight for higher wages." The millions spent by public-employee unions on ballot measures in states like California and Oregon, for instance, almost always support the options that would lead to higher taxes and more government spending. The California Teachers Association, for example, spent $57 million in 2005 to defeat referenda that would have reduced union power and checked government growth. And the political influence of such massive spending is of course only amplified by the get-out-the-vote efforts of the unions and their members. This power of government-workers' unions to increase (and then sustain) levels of employment through the political process helps explain why, for instance, the city of Buffalo, New York, had the same number of public workers in 2006 as it did in 1950 — despite having lost half of its population (and thus a significant amount of the demand for public services).
But the subversive influence of public sector unionization can manifest in even worse ways than that...for instance, it's one of the real reasons why we the highest incarceration rate in the first world:

quote:
For a case study in how public-sector unions manipulate both supply and demand, consider the example of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Throughout the 1980s and '90s, the CCPOA lobbied the state government to increase California's prison facilities — since more prisons would obviously mean more jobs for corrections officers. And between 1980 and 2000, the Golden State constructed 22 new prisons for adults (before 1980, California had only 12 such facilities). The CCPOA also pushed for the 1994 "three strikes" sentencing law, which imposed stiff penalties on repeat offenders. The prison population exploded — and, as intended, the new prisoners required more guards. The CCPOA has been no less successful in increasing members' compensation: In 2006, the average union member made $70,000 a year, and more than $100,000 with overtime. Corrections officers can also retire with 90% of their salaries as early as age 50. Today, an amazing 11% of the state budget — more than what is spent on higher education — goes to the penal system.[Correction appended] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger now proposes privatizing portions of the prison system to escape the unions' grip — though his proposal has so far met with predictable (union supported) political opposition.
Don't let that get in the way of many of you who have this view of the benevolence of public sector unions...

quote:
A further important advantage that public-sector unions have over their private-sector counterparts is their relative freedom from market forces. In the private sector, the wage demands of union workers cannot exceed a certain threshold: If they do, they can render their employers uncompetitive, threatening workers' long-term job security. In the public sector, though, government is the monopoly provider of many services, eliminating any market pressures that might keep unions' demands in check. Moreover, unlike in the private sector, contract negotiations in the public sector are usually not highly adversarial; most government-agency mangers have little personal stake in such negotiations. Unlike executives accountable to shareholders and corporate boards, government managers generally get paid the same — and have the same likelihood of keeping their jobs — regardless of whether their operations are run efficiently. They therefore rarely play hardball with unions like business owners and managers do; there is little history of "union busting" in government.
Guess what, public sector pro-unionista kool aid drinkers, you cannot escape the basic economic fact that public sector jobs by and large do not produce wealth. They consume it. The parasite (consumer of taxes) can only feed on the host (producer of taxes) long enough before the host dies.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What an entitled, whining piece of garbage. I've had a 75% reduction in income and had to file for bankruptcy because of the economic downturn. I WISH I only had only experienced a 14% reduction in income.
Bear in mind that public sector workers accept, in trade for stability, considerably lower pay. This is a conscious choice. If you didn't want the risk, you too could have worked for the government for less money.

----------

quote:
you cannot escape the basic economic fact that public sector jobs by and large do not produce wealth.
Except that, by their existence, they facilitate the creation of wealth. I work in IT, which generates no profits for my employer. Without IT, however, my employer would not be in business. The assertion that public employees are unnecessary because they do not produce profit is a dramatic oversimplification.

[ February 23, 2011, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
What an entitled, whining piece of garbage. I've had a 75% reduction in income and had to file for bankruptcy because of the economic downturn. I WISH I only had only experienced a 14% reduction in income.
Bear in mind that public sector workers accept, in trade for stability, considerably lower pay. This is a conscious choice. If you didn't want the risk, you too could have worked for the government for less money.
Historically that was the case, but it hasn't been true for decades. When measured by number of hours worked, state workers make more per hour than private sector employees and they have incredibly lavish benefits on top of that.

quote:
December 2010
State and local government compensation costs averaged $40.10 per hour worked.
...
Private industry employer compensation costs averaged $27.88 per hour worked.

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That compares total workforce, it doesn't account for similar positions. The public sector does not employ nearly as many unskilled, part time workers as the private sectors does.

You have to control for training and experience to make meaningful comparisons.

This, however is the most important quote from above:

quote:
The rise of government-worker unionism has also combined with the broader transformation of the American economy to produce a sharp divergence between public- and private-sector employment. In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class. This discrepancy indicates how poorly the middle class has fared in recent decades in the private economy, which is home to 80% of American jobs. But it also highlights the increased benefits of government work, and shines a spotlight on the gains public-sector unions have secured for their members. Perhaps this success helps explain why, on average, 39% of state- and local-government employees belong to unions.
Put at it's most simple- high union membership protects middle class standing. Lack of union membership leaves workers victim to corporate profiteering, which seeks to squeeze out the middle class.

The answer isn't to finish the job by continuing to weaken the foundation of the middle class, but to bring back private sector unions to help stand up for it across the board.

Posts: 8056 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrlon appears to be right with the apples-to-oranges comparison.

According to PolitiFactCheck, discussing Eric Bolling's statement on Wisconsin teacher's compensation:

quote:
In order to be a teacher in Wisconsin, you've got to have a 4-year college degree. And 52 percent of Wisconsin teachers also have a master's degree. That's much, much higher than the average education level for workers in the private sector. People with higher degrees in education typically get paid more.

We found two studies that factored in such things as education level, years of experience, race, gender, etc. and found that public employees tend to make a little less than people with similar backgrounds in the private sector.

A report titled "Out of Balance" by two University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professors for the National Institute of Retirement Security, whose board is largely composed of representatives of public employee pensions, found that when "comparable earning determinants," such as education, are considered, state employees typically earn salaries 11 percent lower than their private sector counterparts. When you consider total compensation -- salary plus benefits -- the deficit dropped to 6.8 percent (because public employees generally get better benefits packages than those in the private sector)...

Another report, by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, found that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8 percent less in total compensation than comparable private-sector workers.

Of course, another report says:

quote:
According to an analysis released by the Center for Union Facts on Feb. 22, 2011, public sector employees, on average, earn five percent more in wages and benefits than their counterparts in the private sector.
If teachers make around +/-6% of similar private salaries, even with a very strong union, it is highly unlikely everyone else makes more than 43% higher salaires than the private sector in Wisconsin.
Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Governor Walker gets punked.

Fascinating.
It's hard to believe the things that powerful men say to each other when they think nobody is listening.

Posts: 3643 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
That compares total workforce, it doesn't account for similar positions. The public sector does not employ nearly as many unskilled, part time workers as the private sectors does.

You have to control for training and experience to make meaningful comparisons.

[Big Grin]
Funny you should say that, because the State of CA did just that. Do you know what they found? Can you guess, what the results were?

The conclusion the State Lagged the "Public Sector" and Lead Private industry in almost every area. So other states and the Federal governments actually paid better than the State of California, but they still paid better than the Private sector.

Link

quote:

* State salaries and total compensation lead the private sector for clerical jobs, accountants, custodians, and trade classes such as electricians, stationary engineers, but lag behind similar jobs in the public sector.
* The State leads the private sector in its general analyst classifications (such as personnel and budget analyst) and lags other similar jobs in the public sector.
* The State lags in all medical and related occupations. The greatest private sector lag is for occupational therapists, where the lag is 39 percent.
* In the auditor and registered nurse classifications, the State salaries lag behind other employers – public and private. For auditors, the lag is 7 – 8 percent; for RNs, it’s 3 – 5 percent. (These lags do not reflect recent pay increases for RNs resulting from a federal court order.)
* State compensation generally lags the public sector employers surveyed in all benchmark classifications. In most cases, the lag was between 15 and 30 percent.
* The State offers similar health benefits to those of other large private sector employers (1000 or more employees), but exceeds 33 percent of the labor market which offers no health benefits.
* A State retiree eligible for the full employer health contribution in retirement secures an additional $494,000 in compensation over 20 years.
* In information technology, State salaries lag the other public employers in the survey. Comparisons with the private sector are limited given that only one State benchmark class could be matched to a comparable private sector job; in that case, the State salary lag is less than the public sector lag.


Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see where you get "most" when it lists only a handful of areas (clerical jobs, accountants, custodians, and trade classes- the most general one (trades), notably, where they'd often be competing with private sector unions) where it leads, while it's behind the public sector in all medical, IT, and auditing positions.

We don't even have an accounting of most positions from this, though, even leaving aside their note that the private sector data they used clearly underreported compensation.

Posts: 8056 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The rise of government-worker unionism has also combined with the broader transformation of the American economy to produce a sharp divergence between public- and private-sector employment. In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class. This discrepancy indicates how poorly the middle class has fared in recent decades in the private economy, which is home to 80% of American jobs. But it also highlights the increased benefits of government work, and shines a spotlight on the gains public-sector unions have secured for their members. Perhaps this success helps explain why, on average, 39% of state- and local-government employees belong to unions.

Put at it's most simple- high union membership protects middle class standing.


No you obtuse Statist, it takes taxes from the private middle class to prop up the public sector into a permanent "middle class" status.

But what happens when the middle class in the private sector is financially raped by the economy, and no longer produce enough taxes to maintain the public sector's middle class existence?

The Government must go deeper and deeper into debt to "protect" the public sector's "middle class."

Lack of union membership leaves workers victim to corporate profiteering, which seeks to squeeze out the middle class.

No, simply having a public sector union has worked in perfect conjunction with the corporate profiteers and fascists who run our "government" to squeeze out the private sector middle class.

The answer isn't to finish the job by continuing to weaken the foundation of the middle class, but to bring back private sector unions to help stand up for it across the board.

Despite your verbose, literary diarrhea and obviously above average intellectual quotient, you are completely oblivious to common freaking sense.

The Public Sector union is one of the primary culprits in weakening the foundation of the middle class.

The FOUNDATION is the producer of wealth. It is the producer's taxes that is the foundation of the "public sectors" middle class.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1